Disarming New Orleans


Is it victim disarmament or gun control?


Libertarian cartoonist Scott Bieser launches his new blog with a bang.

Mr. Bieser is also the artist of the graphic novel version of one my favorite libertarian novels, The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith.

Hat tip to Kn@ppster.

Now, to business.

I am at best a reluctant gun advocate.

I own no guns. I belong to no gun groups. I haven't shot one since I was a teenager. Up until a few years ago, I firmly believed that the 2nd Amendment applied only to government organized militias.

But then I noticed that the gun control debate was a little one-sided. There is no problem finding information about handgun injuries and deaths, the news is full of them. But try finding the news stories of people defending themselves with guns.

The fact is, guns introduce an unknown. When a someone is thinking about a violent crime, the one thing that has been proven to stop it is the uncertainty that the victim is armed. The potential robbery victim may be in their sixties, but with a gun and the knowledge to use it, they could face down one or two attackers with no problem. That pretty 14 year old may weigh less than 100 pounds, but with a handgun she could deal with a 250 pound potential rapist.

There are four things that gun control advocates will not tell you, yet can be verified with any good library.

First, the Constitution's meaning of the word "militia" is considerably different than the popular use today. In that time, it meant a self-organizing group along military lines. The men got together without government sanction, organized themselves, and carried out their duties.

Second, the Supreme Court case that determined that Congress could legally control gun sales under the Constitution was decided on a lie, namely that a sawed-off shotgun had no military value. This was just after World War I when sawed-off shotguns were essential in trench warfare.

Third, gun control laws in the United States originated as a way to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in the South.

Fourth, in states where guns can be legally concealed, the violent crime rate per capita is lower.

As I said, these are facts. They can be confirmed. They can be disputed, but not changed.

Now let's look at the passions.

Specifically New Orleans.

Some of the people in New Orleans are using guns to commit crimes

Others are using guns to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Assume that those using guns to protect will turn their guns in, since they are law abiding citizens.

Who will protect them from the people who don't turn in their guns?

Why isn't the gun ban being applied universally? There are private guards in New Orleans who are heavily armed.

What people are most likely to suffer the consequences if the gun ban is carried out?

Even assuming that most of the criminal element is disarmed, doesn't that mean that who ever is strongest does what they want?

Why make victims out of proud people?

Is it gun control or victim disarmament?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - September 11, 2005 at 05:06 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved